pcb_select_net

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the agent knows this mutates editor state safely and repeatably. The description adds that it selects *all* primitives of the net, but says nothing about how it interacts with the existing selection (replace vs. append) or the document auto-switch behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope stated immediately. No wasted words, nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is serviceable for a simple selection tool, but it omits what happens to any prior selection and how it relates to sibling selection/highlight tools, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents net, document (including its auto-switch behavior and UUID sourcing) and instance_id. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (select), resource (all primitives of a specific net), and scope (PCB editor), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not, however, differentiate from the closely related sibling pcb_highlight_net, which an agent would need to distinguish in order to choose correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The very similar sibling pcb_highlight_net — and read-only siblings like pcb_get_net_primitives — are not mentioned, so the agent gets no help deciding between selection, highlighting, and querying.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.